Monday, 9 November 2015

Nice Night In.

I said I was going to have a moan about army lists, but I have decided not to bother, there will be changes to the WAC lists over the next few months and I suspect the Dark Age lists especially will alter quite a bit, so I am looking forward to that as I believe they will become more historical, which I personally prefer even if it makes my armies harder to use.

I built my Romans to a particular list and find that the 'normal' Scarab list does not allow some of the troop types, specifically the cataphracts, as I play within the WAC guidelines at tournaments I have to prove that the troop types I use should be incorporated in the lists, this I still have to do and will do after I have painted the troops in question. It has made me think a little more of army lists, when I decided to build a Romano-British army I simply went ahead from a list, I also read several texts about the army/period as I did so, enough to get to a stage where I question what exactly would a Romano-British force be like and would there actually be an army which could be called such. The period must only have lasted around one hundred years at the best although I think this pushes the limit, so was there actually a British force which still held to Roman military principles rather than putting something together in order to defend a locale once the proper army had left?

I don't think army lists are wrong but I do think they should be more specific rather than cover a general period, my own Roman army is based around 180-190 AD, to simply call this an Early Imperial Army and stretch it from 100-200AD does not work, the army of 100AD would be different from that of 200AD and as you move away from 200AD to 250/300AD it starts to become a rather different beast entirely. The generality of some lists are fine and if you are prepared to live within those restrictions to game then fine, but if you are also interested in your army and research said army Romans or not then you should be prepared to back up your list and use it no matter what.

Is that still a moan about army lists?

Anyway I am home alone again and have sat through 'Ant Man' and thoroughly enjoyed losing myself in the fantasy, it was great fun and there were some excellent tongue in cheek cameos. I love superhero movies and comics and I am well pleased so many are coming to the fore at the moment, I am looking forward to Batman vs Superman and Suicide Squad in particular.

I am drawing almost thirty maps for a new book called 'Noise of Battle' I am unsure of the author as I am working through the commissioning editor but it is a memoir and I find the maps I am drawing very poignant as I interpret the authors personal recollections on the page.

The map above is especially worthy as it shows where the author received a wound, although he dismisses it as a 'small' wound.

This map shows the personal nature of a small action in NW Europe in 1945.


  1. Interesting maps! There's probably a good Chain of Command scenario there?

  2. I was actually thinking the same thing, being a personal memoir there should be scope for small action WWII scenarios. I am going to change the trees in the first map, they are not up to standard, I can do better.

  3. Army lists are always a bone of contention. They're normally 1 or 2 persons point of view and have to fit into their a fair system and set of rules. Here at Reject HQ we tend not to use them, or when we do its just a guideline. It works well for us mainly because we don't play in competitions and always play with each other.....oh er misses!

  4. I also take them more as a guideline, but I do enjoy discussing the various nuances of weaponry, armour and tactics with someone who has taken the time to delve into their particular field of interest. Thankfully army lists are not a bone of contention at the WAC events as they are more about a good weekend at the bar with some gaming in between.